Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: Dorasami Aiyar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 20, 1915
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/795842

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code (Act XL V of 1860), Section 381- Evidence Act (I of 1872), Sections 11, 32--Ownership of alleged stolen property--Witness stating what a deceased person had said to him--Admissibility of such statement. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Dorasami Aiyar

Legal References

Cases Referred
Bela Rani v. Mahabir Singh
Reported In
AIR1916Mad1103(1); 30Ind.Cas.464

Excerpt

penal code (act xl v of 1860), section 381- evidence act (i of 1872), sections 11, 32--ownership of alleged stolen property--witness stating what a deceased person had said to him--admissibility of such statement. - order1. the only evidence as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen is the 1st prosecution witness's statement as to what ranganatha tawkar, now deceased, said to him regarding it. 'we cannot being this statement within the terms of section 32, indian evidence act; and following bela rani v. mahabir singh 14 ind. cas. 116 we do not think it is admissible under section 11. in the absence of evidence as to the ownership of the property, the conviction of an offence punishable under section 381, indian penal code, cannot stand. it is set aside and the accused must be released, if in custody.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The only evidence as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen is the 1st prosecution witness's statement as to what Ranganatha Tawkar, now deceased, said to him regarding it. 'We cannot being this statement within the terms of Section 32, Indian Evidence Act; and following Bela Rani v. Mahabir Singh 14 Ind. Cas. 116 we do not think it is admissible under Section 11. In the absence of evidence as to the ownership of the property, the conviction of an offence punishable under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, cannot stand. It is set aside and the accused must be released, if in custody.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Dorasami Aiyar vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Oldfield and; Seshagiri Aiyar, JJ.
Criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales